I must admit I'm fascinated by the blossoming romance between Joe Gallien and Gordon Mullings.

On paper, it looks bad, one of the most offensive tards on the 'net and one of the most offended tards on the net.

And yet, it's working, flourishing even. Gordon knows that Joe does things elsewhere that would induce a fit from him if an 'evo' did it, but he can compartmentalise that, because Joe likes him, reads his posts and licks his arse.

And Joe is helping make KF stupider. KF praises Joe (for agreeing with him) and has even used Joe's own 'design is a mechanism' idiocy.

Well, I don't know what crash you are talking about. †I don't get the Montserrat news channel and I'll be fucked if I start chasing links to figure out what Gordon's talking about.

Racist... yawn. †ID is cargo cult science.

OKSo you didn't read Freddie's post about the fatal aircrash, that you replied to.KF=Montserrat? L'etat, c'est lui????He may be the biggest, most unpleasant git on the island, but then, he's also one of the biggest gits on earth.

Kick that slimy toad (and I'll lend you my boots when yours are worn out). Leave the decent Montserrat people (who have never heard of him) alone.

i just skimmed over it and say "Fly Montserrat" and I thought, I bet that's a hoot. I have no idea what crash it is though. And before I look it up let me just say I wish Gordon was the obstacle whatever the thing that crashed into

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I must admit I'm fascinated by the blossoming romance between Joe Gallien and Gordon Mullings.

On paper, it looks bad, one of the most offensive tards on the 'net and one of the most offended tards on the net.

And yet, it's working, flourishing even. Gordon knows that Joe does things elsewhere that would induce a fit from him if an 'evo' did it, but he can compartmentalise that, because Joe likes him, reads his posts and licks his arse.

And Joe is helping make KF stupider. KF praises Joe (for agreeing with him) and has even used Joe's own 'design is a mechanism' idiocy.

10 to 1 they have meated each other IRL

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I must admit I'm fascinated by the blossoming romance between Joe Gallien and Gordon Mullings.

On paper, it looks bad, one of the most offensive tards on the 'net and one of the most offended tards on the net.

And yet, it's working, flourishing even. Gordon knows that Joe does things elsewhere that would induce a fit from him if an 'evo' did it, but he can compartmentalise that, because Joe likes him, reads his posts and licks his arse.

And Joe is helping make KF stupider. KF praises Joe (for agreeing with him) and has even used Joe's own 'design is a mechanism' idiocy.

I wonder if kairosfocus is upset that Joe and Barry had a love child with Joe's intelligence and Barry's pleasant demeanor.

Gordon knows that Joe does things elsewhere that would induce a fit from him if an 'evo' did it, but he can compartmentalise that, because Joe likes him, reads his posts and licks his [deleted, watch language, KF].

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

i just skimmed over it and say "Fly Montserrat" and I thought, I bet that's a hoot. I have no idea what crash it is though. †And before I look it up let me just say I wish Gordon was the obstacle whatever the thing that crashed into

Fair enough. I withdraw my censure.And you're right, Gordo particularly deserves large objects to fall out of the sky onto him; my uncle Bert served with the 6th Battalion of the Gordons in N Africa and Sicily, that pusillanimous little shite hides away at UD, too scared to move.By-fucking-dand, indeed †*spit*

"Notable examples of cargo cult activity include the...attempted construction of Western goods, such as radios made of coconuts and straw."

GILLIGAN!!! :angry:

In Rich's link I noticed the reference to Sokal and his bÍte noire, the pseud's pseud Jacques Lacan who makes Dembski look like Milquetoast.

Consider the obviousness of this GEM.

Quote

Richard Dawkins, in a review of Fashionable Nonsense, said regarding Lacan: "We do not need the mathematical expertise of Sokal and Bricmont to assure us that the author of this stuff is a fake. Perhaps he is genuine when he speaks of non-scientific subjects? But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don't know anything about."

Dembski mentally can't get it up, and uselessly just flops around in search of a nonexistent hard bit of 'information'.

His followers pay their money he creams the profits and they go away satisfied.

Feh...I think most people have hell completely wrong and that the Christian concept is just plain silly. People expect hell to encompass pain, torture, and some form of death, but I think that hell likely encompasses helplessness, humiliation, and stealing of dignity. Gordo of course, is the embodiment of all three.

--------------we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. †Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

If even Zachriel canít see that there is no circularity in the dFSCI procedure, after I have given him explicit examples of how it is empirically capable of distinguishing designed strings from non designed strings with 100% specificity, then there is really no hope. There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

This 100% procedure as far as I can tell goes something like this.

Here are three strings.

A) The rock fell on the IDiots head but it was ok because there was no damage. B) 2348905urwe8o0asfjw80435u8023u45890wr4jfe9-0ui5904wuir09efu093wu845890reu804C) The cat sat on the mat.

His "procedure" seems to be to ask somebody to determine which, if any, of those strings are non-random.

I shit you not.

Quote

Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity. Thius is the very simple meaning of my #5: an empirical test where dFSCI can easily recognize designed strings from non designed strings. Empirical test, nothing more.

If even Zachriel canít see that there is no circularity in the dFSCI procedure, after I have given him explicit examples of how it is empirically capable of distinguishing designed strings from non designed strings with 100% specificity, then there is really no hope. There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

I knew that cognitive bias is strong and powerful in humans, but I really believed that it can be partially controlled in intelligent and goodwilled people. Evidently, that is not always the case.

Just wow.

Hey, Gpuccio, I think my next project will be a "is this string designed or not" website.

Given that you have a 100% perfect method of determining design or not you'll clean up.

But I suspect not. As gpuccio himself says:

Quote

There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

If their reasoning is so poor then how come you are on the pissant blog bitching about people who actually get published on a regular basis and not just in books?

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

If even Zachriel canít see that there is no circularity in the dFSCI procedure, after I have given him explicit examples of how it is empirically capable of distinguishing designed strings from non designed strings with 100% specificity, then there is really no hope. There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

This 100% procedure as far as I can tell goes something like this.

Here are three strings.

A) The rock fell on the IDiots head but it was ok because there was no damage. B) 2348905urwe8o0asfjw80435u8023u45890wr4jfe9-0ui5904wuir09efu093wu845890reu804C) The cat sat on the mat.

His "procedure" seems to be to ask somebody to determine which, if any, of those strings are non-random.

I shit you not. †

Quote

Again: we test dFSCI with a set of long enough strings. Some of them are designed and meaningful, some of them are generated randomly. We know the origin of each string (if it was designed or randomly originated) because we have direct knowledge of how they were produced. Then we take some independent observer, who knows nothing about the origin of the strings, and ask him to infer desing, or not, using the evaluation of dFSCI for those strings. He will recognize the designed strings, with 100% specificity. Thius is the very simple meaning of my #5: an empirical test where dFSCI can easily recognize designed strings from non designed strings. Empirical test, nothing more.

If even Zachriel canít see that there is no circularity in the dFSCI procedure, after I have given him explicit examples of how it is empirically capable of distinguishing designed strings from non designed strings with 100% specificity, then there is really no hope. There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

I knew that cognitive bias is strong and powerful in humans, but I really believed that it can be partially controlled in intelligent and goodwilled people. Evidently, that is not always the case.

Just wow.

Hey, Gpuccio, I think my next project will be a "is this string designed or not" website.

Given that you have a 100% perfect method of determining design or not you'll clean up.

But I suspect not. As gpuccio himself says:

Quote

There must really be something wrong in how these people reason.

If their reasoning is so poor then how come you are on the pissant blog bitching about people who actually get published on a regular basis and not just in books?

What happened to the O in dFSCI? gordo likes to promote dFSCO/I. Or is it dFSCI/O? Whatever. I guess gpuccio missed the memo.

And speaking of gpuccio, I'll bet that even after all that BS about "specificity", an "empirical test", and "the dFSCI procedure", he can't calculate the amount of CSI, or FSCI, or dFSCI, or dFSCO/I in a banana.

Hey gpuccio, let's see you demonstrate your intelligence and goodwill by doing the so-called "dFSCI procedure" on these ten things (the real things-not this text), and show your calculations:

To Zachriel (at TSZ):Actually, thatís precisely how we read gpuccioís statements. He defines functional complexity, excludes those with known causes, then concludes the remaining sequences are designed. Keiths summarized it above.Your ďreadingĒ is terrible, and comnpletely wrong.

Or maybe the problem is on your side, gpuccio. You can't express yourself well and your own thoughts on "dFSCI" keep shifting like sand.

And speaking of gpuccio, I'll bet that even after all that BS about "specificity", an "empirical test", and "the dFSCI procedure", he can't calculate the amount of CSI, or FSCI, or dFSCI, or dFSCO/I in a banana.

And speaking of gpuccio, I'll bet that even after all that BS about "specificity", an "empirical test", and "the dFSCI procedure", he can't calculate the amount of CSI, or FSCI, or dFSCI, or dFSCO/I in a banana.

Your question is in the same family as my question of how to distinguish between an uncatalogued protein coding sequence and the same sequence with one disabling point mutation. No fair doing it with chemistry. That would be what natural selection does.

Or my related question of how you know how many mutations it takes to go from a barely active sequence for a catalyst to a highly adapted sequence. How does gpuccio know it exceeds the bounds of probability or involves multiple co-dependent mutations?

Edited by midwifetoad on Oct. 14 2012,10:32

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

If only R. Dawkins had spent more time naming Weasel things might have all been so very different.

Joe: †

Quote

As for Dawkinsí ďweaselĒ and latching:

The program was supposed to demonstrate CUMULATIVE selection. And you cannot have cumulative selection if the proper mutations do not latch. Otherwise it would be called back and forth and sometimes cumulative selection.

In the past I have explained to you why random wrt fitness is meaningless gibberish because it does not mean that the mutations were not directed by an internal algorithm.

Moe:

Quote

In the past I have explained to you why random wrt fitness is meaningless gibberish because it does not mean that the mutations were not directed by an internal combustion engine.

Slo:

Quote

In the past I have explained to you why random wrt fitness is meaningless gibberish because it does not mean that the mutations were not directed by an internal conflict regarding what dress size to buy.

Joe:

Quote

In the past I have explained to you why random wrt fitness is meaningless gibberish because it does not mean that the mutations were not directed by an internal series of tubes.

Comedy Gold. Can anybody else think of any other things that are not doing things to mutations?

The list seems to be, well, unlimited!

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Feh...I think most people have hell completely wrong and that the Christian concept is just plain silly. People expect hell to encompass pain, torture, and some form of death, but I think that hell likely encompasses helplessness, humiliation, and stealing of dignity. Gordo of course, is the embodiment of all three.

OH, so it's high school.

Already did that.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.